Revolutionary Measures

What every PR can learn from Apple – good and bad

For anyone looking for inspiration for their PR and marketing strategy it makes sense to look at what bigger players are doing. Obviously slavishly copying what they do won’t work, but there are always lessons to be learnt that can benefit your brand, whatever size it is.

With CEO of Apple Inc. Steve Jobs.

So looking at Apple’s strategy over the last few years is a good place to start. It may be difficult for many people to grasp, but 20 years ago the company was in a mess, hanging on for its very survival. Founder Steve Jobs re-entered the picture, pushing through innovative new products beginning with the iPod, and then moving onto the iPhone and iPad. The result? Apple became the biggest company in the world by market capitalisation, selling millions of premium products and building a reputation as the maker of must have gadgets for huge numbers of people.

For those looking to see how Apple drove success on the PR side, there’s a fascinating Harvard Business Review article from Cameron Craig, who worked for the company for 10 years. He sums up the approach in five points:

  1. Keep it simple. Don’t use jargon in press releases, and ensure that your language is straightforward and easy to read.
     
  2. Value reporters’ time. Apple doesn’t send out many press releases (leading to complaints of secrecy). Contacting reporters sparingly does mean they’ll pay attention when you have important news – though this is easier for the likes of Apple to do compared to a startup that needs the oxygen of publicity on a more constant basis.
  3. Be hands on. Ahead of any interview Apple organised a hands-on product briefing to explain how it worked, the benefits and features. This is a great way to keep control of the conversation – again, it works better for a big player that has something reporters want than a smaller business struggling to attract their attention.
  4. Stay focused. Keep true to your mission (in the case of Apple providing products that allow customers to unleash their creativity). Don’t comment on news or trends that don’t support this as it wastes time and dilutes your message.
  5. Prioritise media influencers. Focus on the press and influencers that will shape the debate and use your time to build strong relationships with them, as opposed to taking a scattergun approach that targets hundreds of people. This is a really important lesson for businesses – it isn’t just about the amount of coverage you get, but also where it is – get into the right publications read by your target audience and your brand will get noticed.

What’s also interesting is that Apple’s PR and social media strategy seems to be changing. Ahead of the iPhone 7 launch it created its first centralised Twitter account and more information leaked out about the details of the phone. Before this, CEO Tim Cook carried out press interviews after the billionth iPhone was sold earlier in the year.

The change in strategy to be more proactive is partly a response to slowing iPhone sales, and perhaps also the well-publicised EU demand that it pays €13 billion in back tax to Ireland. Getting messages out early also allows Apple to monitor feedback and tweak what it is doing to ensure that the final launch goes smoothly and any questions are successfully answered. Whatever it may be, all companies should take a look at Apple’s PR strategy and see how they can apply the lessons to their own communications.

September 21, 2016 Posted by | Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why marketers fail at building online communities

In today’s world every brand wants to engage with its audiences and use the power of digital to deepen engagement and increase loyalty. Yet there’s a balancing act – consumers are choosier about who they engage with and are increasingly likely to use social media to complain about brands and their actions. Witness this week’s furore after Sainsbury’s changed the range of items eligible for its lunchtime Meal Deal.global_453812571

Many brands have tried to create communities to get closer to customers, but often these have failed to deliver any results. Why is that, and how can marketers ensure they are building effective communities for the long term? At this week’s Cambridge Marketing Meetup Chris Massey of Mind The Product explored some of the reasons why, and gave some tips to maximise the chances of success.

Building a community relies on three factors:

  • Your audience has to be reachable
  • Your community needs to be relevant
  • Members have actually got to care about your product/company

The third factor alone explains why so many communities fail. You may be the one toilet bleach manufacturer with huge sales, but how many people actually care or feel an affinity with your brand? The only way to get their interest would essentially be by buying it – offering free stuff for their time, which will result in low engagement and not deliver lasting results.

As with any marketing initiative, you need to follow a process when creating a community. Start with building a business case – what problem are you trying to solve? For companies with technical products it could be reducing support calls as the community shares its knowledge to provide answers to basic queries, or it could be to help co-create new products and services. Identify your goal, and then create aims and metrics around it, ensuring you get the right level of buy-in internally.

Secondly, do you need to create a community at all? Is there an existing community that you can become involved in? There’s no point reinventing the wheel, particularly if members are unlikely to move across to your community from an open alternative.

Why do people join communities? It is normally for a combination of four reasons, which increase in engagement and commitment as they move up the hierarchy of needs:

  1. To get things (mugs, discounts, general free stuff)
  2. For access – to receive privileged information, such as pre-launch news before everyone else
  3. To feel powerful – members see that their feedback is taken on board and really makes a difference
  4. For increased status – they are respected within the community and essentially can become brand ambassadors/fan boys for your company

Once you have connected with people you need to keep it going. As Chris pointed out, in many ways this is the difficult thing – technically it is easy to create a community, but it takes a lot of work to ensure it thrives over the long term. Think about how you set membership criteria, what it is going to be called, and remember that it is going to take a lot of human management from your end to drive it forward. You aren’t going to always be in control, so bear that in mind, but any community needs to fit your own brand values or it will undermine the rest of your marketing.

Creating a community is not easy, and isn’t a short term project – but done well it can drive real engagement and create a multiplier effect that boosts your brand through third party endorsement. Just start with the business case, rather than building it and hoping that they will come…………

September 7, 2016 Posted by | Cambridge, Marketing, Social Media | , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The open and the closed – marketing post-Brexit

The Brexit vote has highlighted a deep division within English society that is likely to define and drive politics over the next decade. Essentially many traditional Labour voters in Northern/Midlands cities and Conservative supporters in the rural shires all voted to Leave. At the same time those in dynamic cities such as London, Bristol and Cambridge overwhelmingly favoured Remain, irrespective of their political allegiance.download

The result? Political chaos in both the Labour and Conservative parties as traditional voters move from defining themselves as left or right wing, to more about whether they are open or closed. This defines their complete world view. Polling by Lord Ashcroft shows that Leavers share opposition to multiculturalism, social liberalism, feminism, the green movement, the internet and capitalism. By contrast, Remainers are much more open to globalisation and immigration, which they embrace.

In many ways this isn’t unexpected. Globalisation, which has shifted jobs and people around the world, has caused major disruption, and, while it has benefited the economy as a whole, it has sidelined certain groups. All through history this sort of change leads to a fear of the new, which is manifested in religious or racist persecution as people define themselves based on the past, rather than the present or future.

What feels unique is that the two groups – open and closed – are so similar in numbers, yet completely different in their outlook. This has an impact on marketing, adding another layer of complexity to reaching and engaging with audiences. How can marketers ensure they are reaching the right target groups in a post-Brexit landscape?

Obviously certain basic items appeal equally to all consumers – there is no Leave bread, though marketers have always known you are going to sell more artisanal focaccia in Hoxton than in Sunderland. It is as you move up Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to more aspirational purchases that what will appeal to one side is likely to put off another. The open group are more likely to be sophisticated early adopters, pro-technology and renewables, while the closed group are more suspicious and needs-driven.

This has to be taken into account when you are planning your marketing strategy. Which products fit best with the open and closed personas? Geographically where should you make them available? Which celebrities should you bring on board to endorse them? Marketers are probably more likely to be Remainers than Leavers, meaning they will have to ensure that they put their feelings aside and understand their audience if they want to appeal to Brexiteers.

Just as there is no easy answer to the political chaos caused by the referendum vote, neither will marketers find it simple to define and target their audiences. Given that it will be at least two years before Brexit is completed, meeting this challenge will be central to success in our uncertain, interesting times.

July 13, 2016 Posted by | Cambridge, Creative, Marketing, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Where does free speech end?

The cover story in this week’s Economist warns against the growing dangers posed to free speech, by a combination of repressive governments, physical attacks on individuals, and the spread of the idea that people have a right not to be offended. The crux of the article is that the most worrying danger is actually the third one – by not listening to, and debating against, ideas that we find wrong we are actually limiting free speech. It is much better to dismantle an argument and point out its flaws by arguing against its proponents rather than banning the discussion of a subject or point of view, not matter how distasteful we find it. Of course, there are exceptions, as The Economist points out – incitement to violence, for example.

English: Free Speech. Luis Ricardo cartoon Esp...

Shortly after reading this I saw that BuzzFeed has pulled out of an advertising deal with the US Republican Party, now that Donald Trump has essentially won the party’s nomination. It has turned down an alleged $1.3m of income as it fundamentally disagrees with his position and policies. While this isn’t a curb on free speech as such – there are plenty of other places Trump can advertise, and I’m not sure how many of BuzzFeed’s demographic would vote for him anyway, it does illustrate another trend that I’ve noticed over the past few years.

In the UK we’ve gone from a media landscape dominated by four TV channels (and I remember Channel 4 launching), and a set number of newspapers to a multiverse of places to get hold of our news and information. In many ways this personalisation is great – we’re served up stories, or visit sites/TV channels based on our preferences, meaning we get immediate access to what we are interested in.

But on the other hand the shared experience has disappeared – the chances of watching the same TV programme or reading the same article are much fewer. Many people have given up linear TV altogether in favour of box sets or internet-based services such as Netflix or Amazon Prime, some of which auto suggest what you’d like to watch next, based on your previous viewing. At the same time local newspapers have been decimated by the internet, meaning that even many free sheets are no longer delivered, with the exception of titles such as Metro.

So, it is quite possible that people can inadvertently edit out news that is outside their range of sources. To me, this is as much a threat to civil society as curbs on free speech. After all, you can’t complain against something you don’t even know is happening.

So, what can be done about it? We obviously can’t/shouldn’t go back to the limited choice that we had before, particularly as much 1980s television was dire. What we should be looking at is ensuring that the places we are going for our news and information are open, level playing fields that reflect and provide us with a range of views.

This is relatively simple for publically accountable sites such as the BBC, but much more complex for those like Facebook and Twitter which rely on user generated content. Facebook recently had to explain itself to US senators after allegations of anti-right wing basis in its Trending Topics section. The worrying thing is that while many people assume articles are picked by algorithms (which is potentially scary enough), there is major input from human reviewers, leading to the possibility of conscious or unconscious bias creeping in.

What can social media do? An elegant solution would be to randomise the whole process, serving up stories that have absolutely nothing to do with your background or interests. However, given Facebook’s desire to keep you on its site for as long as possible, it is unlikely this would please its users, or shareholders. Instead, how about a certain percentage of random content provided every day, even if it is flagged as different in some way. All it takes is people to become intrigued and click on it, and new connections and interests could be kindled – opening up debate and helping to safeguard free speech. Any other ideas gladly received in the comments section below………

June 8, 2016 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is there space for Google Spaces?

Google

Today our internet use is dominated by just a few tech giants – Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple (GAFA) in the UK and US, with the likes of Baidu, Tencent and Alibaba leading the way in China.

What is particularly interesting is that generally each of these is good at one thing, or group of things. We turn to Google for search and email, Amazon for ecommerce, Facebook for social and Apple for mobile apps. There is obviously some competition – Google’s Android versus Apple iOS for example, but in general each giant has stuck to its knitting.

That’s not for want of trying – Google has tried to get into social media several times with projects such as Wave, Buzz and Google+, while Apple tried to launch Ping, a music-focused network. All failed, although Google+ limps on as everyone with a Google account automatically has a logon.

It isn’t all Google’s fault – the most successful social media networks tend to start small and grow from there, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and WhatsApp. Users are attracted by the features, rather than the brand name, and then it grows exponentially through the network effect – essentially the more people who join, the more value everyone involved gains from being part of it. Social media starts at the grassroots, and that’s one of the reasons that people join particular networks. Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook understands this, hence splashing out on Instagram and WhatsApp rather than trying to develop clones of them from scratch. This neatly neutralises the competition while keeping users within your orbit when it comes to the time they spend online.

So that’s why Google’s latest attempt at a social media network, Spaces, looks like it is unlikely to take off in a big way. Described as a cross between WhatsApp and Slack, it allows users to have conversations and share information around specific topics with groups of people, avoiding, Google says, the need to hop between apps or cut and paste links. The trouble is it means installing/learning another app, and as far as I can see there’s no compelling reason for this to make it to the mainstream in its current form. Sure, people will use it to share information, such as when planning a holiday or big event, but it is hardly a threat to WhatsApp or Slack at present.

What would be more interesting is if Google used it as a basis for more complex, artificial intelligence driven services, such as bots that could be sent off to gain information. So, keeping with the holiday idea, you agree where you’d like to go and use Google to collect and sift relevant information, such as accommodation, weather and flight times, and present it in a single place. Given how long it can take to find all of this normally, that would attract users – and of course provide Google with much deeper data on what users are looking for, enabling them to sell more targeted advertising and hence boost overall revenues.

It is early days for Spaces, but it looks like it needs a bit more of a wow factor if people are going to use it seriously. Google has been burned before on social projects that have been well designed, but fallen short when it comes to getting consumers excited – so time will tell if Spaces joins the likes of Buzz and Wave in the failure column or carves out a loyal user base. However at the moment Spaces risks being seen as neat, but non-essential – hardly the best way to attract us from existing applications.

May 18, 2016 Posted by | Social Media, Startup | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Where are your customers?

Looking through Ofcom’s latest report on media use demonstrates the transformation that has occurred in the past ten years when it comes to how and where we find information, communicate with friends, families and companies, and which sources we trust.

Ofcom

For every company, no matter what size, it should act as a wakeup call and be used to drive their marketing so that they are reaching the right people, in the right way, at the right time. You can download the 200+ page report here, but I want to pick out five key points for businesses and marketers alike:

1. Everyone is online
90% of adults use the internet, showing that whatever demographic you are targeting, they are now online. Adults currently spend an average of 21.6 hours per week on the internet. Interestingly time spent has not changed since the last report in 2014, showing that it has become a set part of our routines. So, whatever you are selling, your customers are online and your marketing needs to reflect that.

2. Search is the gateway
92% of adults say they use search engines when looking for information online, but more importantly many believe simply being high ranking in search results is a guarantee of quality. 18% say that if a website is listed in search results it must be providing accurate and unbiased information. 55% couldn’t identify or tell the difference between organic search results and paid for adverts, with 23% thinking they were the best/most relevant results. Clearly this will be music to Google’s ears as it shows that paid search has a major impact on buying decisions. It also demonstrates the importance of good content on your website – the more focused and useful your website is for your key terms, the higher it will rank on Google.

3. Moving to walled gardens
Aside from search, adults are now more likely to use apps or sites that they are familiar with. Just one in five (21%) – down from 25% in 2014 – say they use apps/sites that they’ve not used before each week. Clearly, audiences are becoming set in their routines and the sites that they trust. This means that brands need to be visible on these gatekeepers if they are to reach their target markets. Essentially, building a website and hoping that audiences will come is not a smart strategy – if it ever was.

4. Don’t forget email
It may have been around for 30 years, but email is still the most popular online communication medium. 93% of people send and receive email on a weekly basis, ahead of 78% who use instant messaging and 76% who look at social media. So marketers mustn’t drop email from their strategy – it still reaches the right audiences despite the rise of other channels.

5. Content isn’t just words
It is no surprise that smartphones are increasingly the device of choice to access the internet – previous Ofcom research found that we spend more time online on our phones than PCs. However what we consume has got much more varied since 2014. 48% watch video clips at least weekly (up 9% since 2014), and 47% listen to radio stations online. So, if you want to attract people to your site, don’t just rely on words, but engage them through all of their senses.

Given the findings of the report, every organisation should take a look at its marketing, advertising and communication strategy. How does it affect your particular demographics? Are you embracing the right channels to engage with them, and is your budget being spent in the most productive way? Use the Ofcom findings as a wake-up call and time to spring clean your strategy and approach.

April 27, 2016 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The PR lessons from Donald Trump

In the past being nominated as the Republican or Democrat presidential candidate had a lot to do with money, specifically advertising spend. This was the weapon of choice for winning over primary voters in each state, hence the push by candidates to appeal to big donors who would then bankroll their campaigns. The sheer sums involved are astronomical – experts believe that $100 million was spent solely on TV advertising around the New Hampshire primary. No wonder that the total 2016 election is expected to cost $5 billion – more than the GDP of many small countries.

English: Donald Trump speaking at CPAC 2011 in...

Normally this counts against the maverick candidate – after all, if you don’t appeal to the big donors with the money you won’t get the advertising, and consequently the primary votes won’t follow. This year, as in many ways, the Republican race is turning out very differently. While the runaway leader Donald Trump has spent money on advertising, it is nowhere near as much as his rivals – for example each of his 239,000 votes in South Carolina cost the equivalent ad spend of $7.42, with a total cost $1.78m. By contrast each of Jeb Bush’s 57,000 votes involved spending of $238.15, with a total budget of $13.78m.

Whatever your opinion of him, Trump has done something that most marketers in general, and PR people in particular, should recognise. Rather than spending money solely on advertising, he’s adopted a balanced marketing strategy that is led by PR and social media, and merely supported by TV and other ads. He’s built a brand and sustained it by continually being controversial – with Twitter the primary channel for his rants. If commentators lauded Barack Obama’s use of social media to win his two terms as president, Trump is the flipside, using the networks to connect with those that feel disenfranchised and left behind by traditional politicians.

Of course, it is all (to put it politely) a load of baloney – and Trump knows it. Policies such as building a wall between the US and Mexico (and getting the Mexicans to pay for it) and banning Muslims from entering the country are both objectionable and unworkable. His ideas for increasing the tax paid by hedge fund managers have been proved by economists to actually reduce the tax take from that group. Yet every time opponents seem to be closing the gap, he opens his mouth, says something offensive/controversial and sees opinion polls soar. It is a classic PR-led marketing campaign.

I’m certainly not advocating any of my clients follow suit with similar sentiments, but there are lessons to be learnt from Trump’s success to date:

1. Play the long game
Trump has spent the past few years building his profile as a celebrity. His bombastic stint on The Apprentice provided the bedrock for his celebrity, and he has nurtured this on Twitter and through inflammatory comments long before the campaign began. In contrast, many of his opponents had little national profile before the Republican primaries began, so have been building a base from scratch.

2. Build a connection
Despite being a billionaire who inherited much of his wealth Trump is seen as being on the side of those that have been squeezed by trends such as globalisation. In the same way that Nigel Farage has cultivated his bloke in the pub persona (despite going to top public school Dulwich College and a career in the City), he has built a connection with his supporters. They feel he understands them and is rooting for them, with social media helping to give a personal, human relationship between him and his followers.

3. Everyone loves the underdog
Trump has positioned himself as the radically different challenger brand, rather than being more of the same. This means he is seen as an outsider – David versus Goliath, despite his wealth, connections and fame. He’s not viewed as a politician, with all the baggage that brings, or even as a serious candidate by many. Again, similar tactics helped Boris Johnson win the London mayoral election – a few stints on Have I Got News for You and he’d positioned himself as a bumbling, unthreatening clown, completely different to the political elite.

4. Be controversial
Again, I’d not advocate clients becoming bigoted, bullying misogynistic racists, but Trump uses language that the general public understands and relates to. He doesn’t just read off an autocue or give speeches that have been refined until there is no meaning left in them. People remember his soundbites and they stand out from the crowd – not just because they are offensive, but because of the type of language he uses. This is all part of his act, but demonstrates an understanding of what makes people respond at a very basic level.

I sincerely hope that Trump fails to get the Republican nomination, and, failing that, that the general public see sense and doesn’t vote him into the White House in the coming election. However everyone in marketing and communications should heed the lessons of his campaign, and look at how they can use PR and social media to get their message across to key audiences.

March 9, 2016 Posted by | Creative, Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Will the FBI take a bite out of Apple?

Apple has built itself into the largest quoted company in the world by being different. From the early days of the Macintosh computer, through the iconic iMac and onto the iPod, iPad and iPhone, its products have challenged the orthodox approach with a combination of design and features.

English: The logo for Apple Computer, now Appl...

It has extended this into the virtual world. Unlike competitors such as Google and Facebook, which have built businesses essentially based on collecting and selling personal data to advertisers, Apple has positioned itself as a champion of privacy. In a speech in 2015 CEO Tim Cook stated, “We believe the customer should be in control of their own information.

This approach extends to protecting personal information stored on Apple devices and within iCloud. All iPhones and iPads are encrypted by default, meaning that even Apple itself cannot access the data on them. This obviously gives an unprecedented layer of protection for personal data, which has been particularly welcomed after Edward Snowden’s revelations of widespread snooping by intelligence services on electronic communications.

However protecting normal citizens against hackers, criminals and terrorists is one thing, but what happens when the iPhone in question actually belongs to a terrorist? This is the current case, being hotly debated in the media and on social media. Following the San Bernadino terrorist shootings last year, the FBI recovered one of the perpetrator’s iPhones. Obviously this is locked with a 4 digit passcode, and simply cycling through all possible combinations is impossible – after a number of failed tries iPhones are programmed to erase all data to combat this type of brute force attack.

Consequently, the FBI has asked Apple to help, removing the erase feature from this specific phone and allowing it to try and guess the password electronically, rather than having to type in the potential 10,000 combinations. It has refused, rejecting a court order and issuing an open letter stating that it will not ‘hack itself’ and create an insecure back door into its products that could be exploited by others.

In many ways Apple has a point – even without the Snowden revelations, governments have a poor record of keeping backdoors safe. This was demonstrated by the US Transportation Security Administration, which mandated that all luggage manufacturers created a skeleton key that could be used to open any suitcase. A photo of the master key was accidentally printed in the Washington Post, allowing criminals to model and create it using 3D printers.

At the same time, the FBI is adamant that it is not asking for access to the backdoor itself – it says it is happy for Apple to disable the erase feature itself and provide access to the data, without telling the Feds how it was done. Essentially Apple is putting itself above the law, which has potentially chilling ramifications given its size, number of users and global reach. It isn’t the plucky underdog it was when the Mac first went up against the PC.

The high profile nature of the case, and the fact that it involves a proven terrorist further complicates matters – most right-thinking people would want to help the government in this scenario. Perhaps the wisest words have come from Bill Gates, who is calling for a wider debate on the balance between privacy and accessibility, irrespective of the case in hand.

As I’ve said before, a reputation for protecting user information is a central part of the Apple brand – and is only becoming more important as the company branches into payments (Apple Pay) and personal health data. Therefore its principled stance makes perfect sense from a marketing point of view. It may well have to eventually comply in some way, but it will have lived up to its promise to fight for privacy, keeping the rest of its community happy, and consequently protected its brand. However what the whole case shows is that we need a grown-up, rational debate about who has access to our personal data, under what circumstances and how they can access it.

February 24, 2016 Posted by | Marketing, PR, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

What follows Twitter?

The press and Twittersphere have been in tumult this week concerning the unexpected departure of five key senior managers from the microblogging site. Shares fell by nearly 5% as investors worried about the company’s strategy for growth, while CEO Jack Dorsey was forced to take to the social network to reassure the world that the departures wouldn’t overly impact Twitter.

English: Biz Stone and Jack Dorsey, co-founder...

Given that user figures stubbornly fail to increase beyond 300 million, and that the share price has dropped by 67% since last April, the executive exodus is seen as symptomatic of wider issues – particularly an inability to make money on the scale of rival Facebook. Bold ideas trumpeted to revive the network include extending the lengths of tweets from 140 to 10,000 characters, but it doesn’t seem clear how this will increase revenues. In a month that saw social media pioneer Friends Reunited finally close, is it possible that Twitter will eventually go the same way?

Twitter does have a number of problems – many of which revolve around the original structure of 140 character messages, all displayed in real-time. It is easy to meet messages of interest given the sheer volume of content on the site and the user experience is not as immediately friendly as the likes of Facebook (which has also done a much better job of collecting and monetising data on its users and their habits.) When I was in Singapore last year I was told that no-one really used Twitter as they didn’t see the point, and it is true that in the UK and US much of network’s high profile comes from its use by commentators, journalists, experts, and Donald Trump.

So, is Twitter doomed, and if so what will take its place? First off, it does seem strange suggesting that a business with 300 million users is on its last legs, but we live in a world governed by network effect and the likes of Facebook have much larger user bases. And of course, none of the 300m is paying to use the service. Twitter seems like a network that doesn’t have a clear purpose – people tend to use Facebook for personal social contact, and LinkedIn for business. Both of these have bulked up their offerings, with Facebook pitching itself as a channel for customer service, with Facebook Business on Messenger, and LinkedIn’s ability to write and share blog style content providing a channel for business insight. Essentially Twitter is being squeezed, and for many people has become just a signposting tool, pointing to content hosted elsewhere. I tweet all my blogs, and it provides a steady stream of traffic to my posts – although not as many as LinkedIn.

However, I do think Twitter has a role to play – but it needs to be simplified, made more user friendly and above all clearly monetized. Which brings me to a potential suitor/solution for the service – Google. There are three reasons for suggesting it would be a good fit:

  • Google is a master at collecting user data and turning it into a saleable commodity. You may hate the fact that it knows so much about you, but it has built an enormous business on its stated aim of collecting all the world’s information
  • Despite its relatively friendly and sensible design Google +, its own social network, has failed to gain any traction, and merging the two will bring the best of both worlds together. There are allegedly 500m Google + users, mainly because registering for other services automatically adds you to the network, providing a ready market for Twitter – and that’s before you start looking at the hundreds of millions that use Google search or YouTube.
  • Other tech companies, such as Facebook, Amazon and Chinese rivals Baidu and Tencent are offering more and more services. Google therefore risks being left behind in the long term as consumers choose to spend more of their online time with fewer providers.

So there is logic behind a deal – though I’m not sure what the new entity would be called. Gitter or Twittle anyone?

 

January 27, 2016 Posted by | Marketing, Social Media | , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Being a fox, not a hedgehog

In a famous essay based on a fragment of Greek poetry, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin divided writers into two groups – hedgehogs (who essentially know one thing in depth) and foxes (who know many things and see the world through a variety of experiences). This classification can be equally applied to all of us.

A Red Fox on an Evergreen, Colorado's porch.

As human knowledge has grown, and professions have become more specialised, people have been encouraged to be more hedgehog, and less fox. After all, the time, dedication and skills needed to become a brain surgeon, mean it is unlikely that the same person could train as a rocket scientist. So, since the Renaissance, where the likes of Leonardo da Vinci were equally adept with science and the arts, we have been pushed down the path of specialising and knowing one thing in depth.

This has obvious advantages – no-one wants to be operated on by a brain surgeon who only did half their training, but it also very limiting. As hedgehogs, people tend to view the world through the prism of their own experiences. Hence you might find that someone in the police force is by nature suspicious and on their guard, or a primary school teacher talks down to adults, treating them like children. These are obviously extreme cases, but we’ve all met someone and been able to correctly guess their profession due to what they say and how they say it.

More importantly, at a time when pretty much all the knowledge in the world is on the internet, and digital technology is changing how we work, live and play, being a hedgehog is also out of step with today’s reality. Sticking to what you know, rather than looking to acquire new skills limits everyone’s potential – it is no accident that the most enthusiastic and fearless users of new technology are children, who are naturally foxes as they learn.

However, becoming more fox-like is not easy. Like anything new, it involves giving up long-held, cherished beliefs and taking a risk. It can also be more difficult than it looks. The internet overloads our hedgehog brains with too much information, making it hard to see the wood for the trees. For example, when Spotify has tens of thousands of tracks how do we choose what to listen to? The safest bet is just to stream what we know about already, confirming our hedgehog tastes. Artificial intelligence that learns what we like automatically suggests more of the same, rather than throwing in a curve ball – “you like Puccini, have you tried Taylor Swift?”

So, how do we encourage our foxiness, but without losing the focus that a hedgehog brings? I think it comes down to three things:

1. Communication
It is easy to sit in our hedgehog silos, blaming other groups when things go wrong. Companies are full of inter-departmental feuds, with sales complaining about marketing who criticise engineering who grumble about accounts, until no-one is happy. Much better to actually sit down and listen to what everyone does, why they do it, and then try and fit it all together for the good of the wider organisation. The same principle applies in relationships outside work – understand the mindsets of those around you if you want to be able to talk their language.

2. Turn the internet on its head
In the same way that the internet encourages silos, it also provides almost limitless scope for new experiences. Rather than just extending what we do offline onto the web, use it to find new things to do, new skills to learn and new people to talk to. Type a random idea into Google and see what comes back (though be careful what you wish for), take up a new hobby or subscribe to the magazine used in the Missing Words round of Have I Got News For You?, for example. Obviously make sure it is legal, and while you may hate it, at least you’ll have had a new experience.

3. Don’t smother fox learning
As I’ve said, children are naturally foxes in how they pick up experiences from all around them. But at a certain age this stops, and they are focused solely on what they should be learning, at the expense of letting their imaginations wander. I’m not advocating dismantling the education system completely, but schools and universities should make sure they are teaching a balanced curriculum, and ensuring that students remain curious about the wider world. Why not get astrophysics students to read French literature at the same time?

When the Hedgehog and the Fox was written in 1953 there was no internet, smartphones or tablets and in many cases the solid, reliable, trustworthy hedgehog was the ideal to aspire to. Times have changed, and we all need to encourage our inner fox if we are to thrive in the constantly-evolving digital world.

December 9, 2015 Posted by | Creative, Social Media, Uncategorized | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment